Total posts: 3,457
-->
@zedvictor4
Your version of "thinking outside the box" is making non-sequiturs. That isn't being creative, that's being wrong
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
I wish I was in your classes, lol, homework is a pretty regular thing where I'm from, I don't know of any teachers who don't assign it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
No. I meant about your second post, you saying that drag queens are bad, is you being an oppressive bigot. I would appreciate it if you would not address me anymore, else I will block you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So you were discovered, figured out, the fact is... you didn't and don't know what you're talking about, and now you want to pretend like you had some point the entire time. You haven't, you discovered to be lacking in your reasoning and are now trying to cover yourself.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
LIterally not the point, I said, IF you want to declare anything wrong, then these things are true at least for you. Your point isn't applicable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Also, a new study, which attempts to correct for problems with current survey methodology (even when anonymous we don't always answer honestly), finds that 19 percent of Americans don't consider themselves heterosexual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Wrong. Based on the definition of objective, something is only objective if it true independent of the mind, I ask you to demonstrate that morality is that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Drag queens are perfectly fine people. You being an oppressive bigot aside, I have no idea what you're going on about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That is exactly it, I really don't want to be interrogated forever, but I can change it to 20 if that suffices
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Firstly, what do you mean by flippant? What you consider flippant to me could be what is considered blunt. Secondly, this is fine, but do know that there will be times when I won't be able to answer. If anything too personal is asked, there will not be an answer, period.
Let's say:
1. A valid reason for an answer to be considered flippant.
2. One question at a time
3. Anything to personal is a no go
4. I have, at maximum, 12 hours to respond, unless otherwise agreed.
5. If you are going into semantic territories, such as the specific definition of words within definition that is only applicable for x or y, I think you understand what I mean, then after explaining myself the question is void.
6. After every 10 questions, I am allowed the opportunity to opt out.
I don't feel these are too much to ask for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sure? Do you want to do that in this thread or a new one?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Because healthcare is the system that allows modernization. Without ways to prevent illness, fix injury, or treat afflictions; not only would productivity plummet, but the age of living would also be reduced. Not only that but in order to have any morality at all, the state of other's beings is implicitly needed. Therefore, in order to declare anything "wrong", you must have an assumption that human regard matters, and would thus be morally inclined to take care of such things. The marketization and order for product only hinder that goal, the exploitive cost, the idea that there should be profit in the organization at all, all of that, hinders that goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No, sources provide impacts to argumentation, if you were to try to present an argument, the premises held within it have to be true for the argument to hold any weight. You do not tend to have nor even look at sources. That was my point. If you knew of logic, then you would know of soundness, which is where the argument is both valid and true.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Except... you can be partially free... You can be regulated to the laws of physics and technically not be "free". You can have the right to do as is with the law and technically be "free". Clearly, there is more nuance to freedom that you do not include, to look at it binarily is like to look at lots of things through a binary, that simply isn't. It is simplistic and not the case. I could be a criminal that is allowed out of prison, but with an ankle monitor, I am "more" free than I was before unless you're saying there is no difference? Clearly, freedom is relative to your experience.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Honestly, I could try to rebut you, but I definitely feel ill-prepared to speak purely economics, lol, so I took a step back and saw what other people thought. From my perspective, its as simple as making some systems or markets owned by the state and others not. I don't know if there something beyond the obvious, "how would we pay for that" that makes that some kind of problem. Some things shouldn't be treated as a business, certainly not healthcare, insurance, or education. That's my views though.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Me tooo, which is why I asked
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The actual sexuality is a non-point, as pedophilia develops differently than other sexualities, I was saying that using their logic, then it would be that way. Not that it necessarily is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's not what intelligence is....Anyways. Even if someone were to have the necessary information, its also a matter of actually knowing to apply that knowledge to the problem. That is your fault, you designed the puzzle-like that intentionally, no? In actual puzzles, they give you the context, that way you can actually see your mental acuity.
Created:
-->
@Athias
As for socialism? I think people are much more familar with it's failings, I'll go with one of the most apparent: Its lack of incentives.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Except I didn't assume that was the only solution, I said it is a possible solution. I also suggested mixing and coming up with something new, awfully selective reading you have there.
If I were to say: "Because it is not either of them the answer must lay in the middle" You would be justified in saying that, but A) The fact that we already kind of do that, and B) That isn't what I said, your fallacy is an example of the fallacy fallacy.
As for the problems of either?
Capitalism
I could list them out, but I think this source does it much better than I could explain it currently: (GEH)
"In short, capitalism can cause – inequality, market failure, damage to the environment, short-termism, excess materialism and boom and bust economic cycles."
"Contemporary capitalism is under growing fire, with a rising chorus of critics making four main points: first, that the current incarnation of capitalism produces too much inequality; second, that it is too unstable and prone to crisis; third, that capitalism in its current form is at odds with the planet's ecology; and fourth, that capital has hijacked government, subverting democracy and winning too many special favors. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Prove anything you're saying. You are factually incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
MM, Id be up for it, not anytime currently though
Created:
-->
@Conway
Okaaay? So what? I made it clear that I find neither particularly valid on their own. Also, its not like we didn't pick the term up. Its been use for decades by us, to describe a free market.
primary motivation of individual contributions to the economy.
Well, they want to thrive in a system of economics no? So in the long run they make more profit, though this applies more to corporations than it does individuals. I don't see what your objection is precisely.
Is this you saying that we should only have a free market system? Because if that's the case I can tell you that I disagree very much
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That is not what intelligence is at all... That is applicable knowledge, which, contrary to popular belief, isn't that. Intelligence is the ability to understand and comprehend concepts
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Did you... did you actually check my sources? No. This isn't the standard format of a number puzzle. You are factually incorrect here. Actually prove your assertions please, this is getting a slight bit annoying. All of what you are saying is not relevant.
Here is what's relevant:
- IQ tests and the subsequent scoring have nothing to do with actual complete intelligence, they have to do with abstract intelligence.
- You have provided exactly zero evidence that 1 is the case, instead providing a quote "puzzle"
- This puzzle has zero context and is apparently not a sequence or a pattern (the only things that could be logically inferred without making assumptions)
- You have refused to look at the actual evidence that says you are wrong and continue to make the same assertions sans proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No one made that argument... at least not here... you are presenting a strawman and sarcastically deconstructing it (not even well I might add), so perhaps engage with actual arguments and sources presented. Perhaps make yourself a serious point, or is it all laughs with you? I find it hard to take you seriously whenever you so often resort to the same method of argumentation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Indeed. My point was simply that theism is often a great indicator of conservatism, and vica verca
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Anecdotal evidence is not reliable, period. No, they have falsely been used to propagate several false claims throughout all of human history. I could go into the peer-reviewed studies about why anecdotal evidence is not reliable, but that would be me being a broken record at this point. Talking by the laws of physics, something that is supernatural is definitionally impossible. The lack of empirical evidence, the amount of those who have claimed to see ghosts, only to admit later that it was a ploy, or that it was a trick of x, y, or z. I do not doubt that you had an experience that you considered to be supernatural. I doubt that you were correct in ascertaining it's origin. Another point of this sort, for a long while, there was a 1 million dollar prize open for anyone to take, if they could demonstrate the supernatural and for them to test it, no one ever could pass or demonstrate it. You see, until you have demonstrated your claim, you claim is only that, an assertion. I do not biasedly assume this of your position alone, I do this to all positions. My level of confidence lays with the level of evidence provided. And you claim to have had a spiritual experience and met other people who had, is not strong evidence of anything. People claim to have seen big foot, or been captured by aliens, these can line up in details, yet why not assume them true as well? Because everyone has been influenced by similar phenomena in this regard, and therefore the human brain, which is obsessed with forming patterns (even when there are none there) will make a connection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
To some, the universe appears designed, and I suppose in some regards it does, but none of these "designs" are actually indicative of a god upon further examination. As for that, there is more than just the creation story that puts me at odds with the bible. It's the fact that none of the extra-ordinary claims have an ounce of actual evidence behind them, in fact, there isn't any evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt! Before I could ever trust the bible to explain underlying principles of anything, there would have to be some level of authenticity to it, I have found exactly none. It mentions one or two cities that actually exist, but you know, so does Spider-Man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
You considered your past position to be "ultra conservative" what would you describe yourself as, politically speaking, currently?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
That's not conservativism, that's religious extremismThat's a good point.
They are often intertwined
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I consider all propositions the same, with the weight and amount of evidence behind the claim, therefore any proposition of god would be met with the same standard. I do not judge the proposition of god on the arguments, I judge religion based on the people. But I would object to the notion that good portion of theists use skepticism, I would argue that the minority employ it, they are most certainly the exception to the rule. Considering that a notion of "faith" is so popular and all... I realize some call it "trust" however I whenever a christian says faith, I assume they are talking of their holy book's definition of faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
But do you think your rejection of the Bible justifies your rejection of the existence of God as a concept on its own? let me ask it another way, could you justify any existence of God without the urge to justify the Bible? or would you consider the existence of God without the need to consider any Bible?
There are multiple questions here, so I'll break it up to be as clear as possible.
do you think your rejection of the Bible justifies your rejection of the existence of God as a concept on its own
First step, there is no rejection there, the bible is false about a number of its claims. For it to be rejection you would have to assume its true, when, in reality, the burden of proof falls upon the one who make the claim, therefore if anyone were to take the bible as true, they would be charged with demonstrating it's positions. To answer the actual question, no, the bible being false does not necessarily mean that god does not exist, simply that the one of the bible likely does not.
could you justify any existence of God without the urge to justify the Bible?
I couldn't, but evidence of god could be from or not from the bible. I find the bible a specific example of immorality in a number of premises, and obviously is not the original text, so not even accurate to the OG version, as well as not comporting with reality. I think theists ought to ditch the bible if they ever hope to demonstrate god.
would you consider the existence of God without the need to consider any Bible?
I would need evidence of a god regardless of a holy book. I don't find the bible particularly important in regards to the existence of a god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Its a combination of things, but I imagine those to be some common reasons. But at this point Franklin, i refuse to call him a doctor without proof of a doctorate at this point, will refuse anything that doesn't conform to his close-minded view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I appreciate your consideration in that regard, but I can assure you I was convinced of being an atheist before I was treated negatively. Did that marr my view of religion in general? Most definitely, and I recognize my bias in regards to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I failed to see any evidence of your claims. And the white crime rates are higher proportioned to the population, which is what that scale shows, you are still factually wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
Oh negatively for sure. My step-dad tried to have me exorcised, almost tied me to a bed restrained, and had the priest on the phone. My mother forced me to attend church 4 days a week, for several hours per each day I went there. Plus, I was pretty much forced from all media and stuff like that. It was only a couple months later that my mom calmed down and lightened up on all that. My step dad has only recently stopped with all of his, "you're possessed by demons" stuff. So, I was treated very negatively, and still am in fact. Of course, I live in the bible belt, so that should be expected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aletheakatharos
I suppose I can explain why I'm an atheist, and really it came down to two essential factors:
- I opened my mind to the possibility that I was wrong in regards of god and such
- I read the bible without assuming it to be true
Those were really the only big factors I can think of that lead to my initial disbelief in god. Now, somethings opened the door for me to become doubting as I had, but those are as less important as they are numerous. I suppose I could list a couple: the treatment of gay people and slaves in the bible did not sit right with me; the conundrum of a sincere rapist accepting jesus into their heart and getting to go to heaven, while the good people who simply did not believe went to hell; anecdotal nature of the evidence i was presented, etc, etc, I could keep on going, but I feel like that is sufficient to get an idea of my state of mind.
Needless to say, amongst my first attempts of rereading the bible from cover to cover, I was biased against my own thoughts, surely I was wrong, surely the people in my life that had told me this was true were correct, and I was incorrect. I was only 14 at the time after all, what did I truly know? That me would ask what I truly knew even know, two or so years later as a 16 year old. The biggest difference between myself and that past version of me, is that I do not assume those who are older or more experienced necessarily hold the correct position. Everyone holds positions for reasons, those reasons can be valid or invalid.
It happens that as you become more experienced and studied, these reasons tend to become less invalid, this does not preclude them from mistake, it means they are less likely to make them deliberately. That and a couple of long, drawn out, conversations with my priest later, and I officially declared myself an atheist, it was around the April of 2019. That would make it 20 months now, a year and three quarters, and I have yet to be convinced. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am not, I think currently that I'm not wrong, but I could be. That's really the gist of the story, I'm a teenager who likes to study philosophy and narrative, who just so happens to no longer believe in any god(s).
So this would chronicle why I no longer believe what I do, but why do I believe in things as materialism? Progressive values? Evolution? All of the above. Simply study. I have no profound words or whimsical tales, only the truth, which is that I studied, and weighed the evidence, and was convinced that these claims are true. (materialism, progressivism, evolution, etc,) Again, I could be wrong, I haven't been convinced yet, and it just so happens that now, I actually have adults that explain why I am incorrect and correct on these notions, not simply people who dilly dally in the propositions claims.
Hopefully this account provided some form or semblance of value.
Created:
Why do people continuously insist: "Either Capitalism or Socialism", clearly both economic systems have their faults. Why is it that in other regards can we see that there are middle grounds, third options, etcetera, but in this specific field I've overwhelmingly seen support in one or the other way. I think that the faults of either are inescapable in their purest forms. In a capitalist society any short term loss for long term profit, in a Socialistic one the way it can be set below the minimum standard. Now, Capitalism does not solve the problems of Socialism, not in a long term anyways; the same is true of Socialism on Capitalism. It is true, of what I've studied, that devaluing the work actually done to obtain, manufacture, create, etc, the product will do nothing but harm in the long run.
Therefore should their not be some new considerations here? I'm obviously not very equipped to try something like this, still not very educated on the more fine details of economics, and so I wouldn't attempt to claim I could at all. Instead I would just propose an idea, could there not be a mix of the two? Either keeping some elements of both, or mixing them to a point of making something new? Is that not attainable? If it is attainable, is it something that could benefit people economically? If it is attainable and could benefit people, would we want to do that system? If all of these things are true, how long would you propose a transfer of systems? Perhaps all of this is off base, if so, explain why: This isn't actually a popular dichotomy, or: This dichotomy is reasonable for x,y, & z.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Mm, overthrowing a violent oppressor? Seems legit to me.
I think most religions are harmful, and I regard Satanism as one of the less harmful ones, so... yeah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
??
As have I, they were legitimately some of the nicest people I have ever met.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
No it is you who is missing the point here: You do not need a god to have a immaterial realm.
You are assuming that the only way to get there is a god
The fact is - if there was one (as supernatural realm) - there would need to be evidence of what created it
There is no assuming fallacies here you are committing logical fallacies in your reasoning, saying, "You don't understand my argument" isn't a valid criticism of logical fallacies. Specifically point out why a supernatural realm couldn't have the same qualities of an god that has had no creator. Why can't this realm have been infinite? The core problem is that you, have the presumption that only god could do this, when this is not evidenced by any philosophic reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No it's not
"But these perceptions are not supported empirically; instead, as demonstrated below, theyare refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence. Both contemporary and historical studies, including official crime statistics and victimization surveys since the early 1990s, data fromthe last three decennial censuses, national and regional surveys in areas of immigrant concentration,and investigations carried out by major government commissions over the past century, haveshown instead that immigration is associated with lower crime rates and lower incarcerationrates."
You are factually incorrect
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wrong... as I have literally demonstrated, these are not like usual puzzles. Perhaps you have some sort of parameter in your head, but we don't. I can guarantee that whatever solution you have to that puzzle, a thousand more just as valid ones could also be made, due to how incredibly vague it is. The usual number puzzle has context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I could truly care less why you think I believe or don't believe this, provide evidence to your assertions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I just explained it... did you not read it? There wouldn't be a name for it besides spiritualism. Which is just the view that a spiritual realm exists without a god. That's all. You don't need to know what created it to believe in it. And atheists can who follow it can simply say that there is evidence for a supernatural but not for a god, inserting god without connecting evidence is a god of the gaps fallacy (hence why i say that people would need to prove both that a god exists and a supernatural they are separate claims, you not being able to comprehend it is another fallacy)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The logic you think it follows does not matter, as I have said over and over. No. IF you think that god does not exist, and you also think that there is a spiritual realm, all it means is that they do not know the exact cause, just that there isn't evidence for a god. You are committing a fallacy of false dichotomy. People could believe in other means of there being a spiritual realm, such as one having the same attributes as god in the sense that is has always been there and never needed a creator, you are limiting it out of your own view of creationism, and you are therefore being closeminded. Kind of ironic.
Created: